POSSIBLE ?

Usually, on this site, we present something of an open topic and trust it spurs discussion. This time, the topic is rather focused though we are still purposed that it will spur not only discussion, but also some action.

Some time ago, while engaged in one of many arguments about the elections in this country, there was brought to the table the question of how to contend with, if not the vast array of items on the discussion agenda, at least what most felt were the issues of major concern.

In every election, there is always the element of turn out. All parties and their candidates suffer serious hand wringing when the numbers fail to reach the level necessary to win – be it either an office ,  a ballot measure or a change in legislation. Turn out has always been an issue, in the mid term elections especially. In one state, the last mid term election turn out was less than thirty per cent and look what we got. Bad enough what was sent to congress, but in that state, at least two under indictment were sent to the state senate. That has to do with turn out but also the failure of messaging on the part of all parties.

Anyhow, getting back to that discussion, there were some interesting ideas put forth, some completely out of the realm of possibility, some preposterous but there were some that found a surprising level of agreement and that was interesting. The basic focus was on the mechanics of the election itself, including the choosing of candidates. The rest were part and parcel to that.

So, allow me to out some of this here for your consideration. Think about it, talk about it and if so, take some steps to raise the public awareness in order to get some not only major but what is felt to be critical changes made in the way we do the business of electing our political leaders.

The one concern that we all seemed to agree upon, aside from educating a pathetically ignorant voting population, was the compelling concern regarding the Electoral College and how it functions.  For the election of a president, it is  based on congressional representation in each state and the votes cast actually do not vote for the candidate, they vote for the electors. They, in turn, vote for the candidate they’re pledged to. It is all very convoluted. And the curious thing is, while we would think the popular vote would seal the deal, so to speak, there have been at least twice in the recent past where the candidate who actually won the popular vote, lost the election. This was true in 2000 and in 2016.

In 2016, Secretary Clinton 48 % of the popular vote, nearly 2.9 million votes more than Trump and yet, the Electoral College vote gave Trump the edge. This is, what most people who understand this contend, is simply  “ not what we voted for “, so to speak. It is fair to say that the historical premise on which the Electoral college process was based is now irrelevant and we ought to be moving full speed ahead toward a one person, one vote, popular vote majority wins. It is well past  time to dissolve the Electoral College.

In a moderately close second place, accepting that all elections must have a mail in ballot capacity, are the issues of how elections are conducted and who controls the election procedures.

We are a nation of some fifty states  ( forty -six states and four Commonwealths, if one is to be accurate ) and they represent a patchwork of how things are done. Some require all votes to be in by end of Election Day . Some have a five day grace periods for mail in ballots, particularly those from, say, military serving over seas.

As for control, a similar patchwork prevails. In some states, the elections are controlled by the Secretary of State, who is appointed by the governor. In three states, the Secretary of State is elected by the legislature. In other states, the Secretary of State is elected by the voters. In turn, the elections are overseen by that Secretary of State or, as in other states, the oversight is done by the legislature or, as in others, it is done by an independent commission.

What is needed, especially in this era of continual allegations of voter fraud – allegations for which there are NO bases or findings ( note numerous audits and forensic audits, over sixty court cases after the 2020 election and an in depth study by the Heritage Foundation ) is uniformity across the states. Our position on this is that in every state,  elections should provide for mail in ballots, end of week grace period for receipt as long as the post mark is prior to or on election day and the oversight of elections should be conducted by an INDEPENDENT COMMISSION, elected by the voting public, ultimately  accountable to the Secretary of State.

Next in line for reform focuses on time and money. 

Here in the states, there does not seem to be any limits on either the amount of money spent on a political campaign or identifying whence the funds. There also does not seem to be any limit on the  time a candidate, or a candidate hopeful engages in campaigning for an office. In fact, it often seems that some start campaigning within weeks of winning the current election. This is definitely true for those elected to the U S House. And thanks to the Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision, those conditions remain. It is now time to place some limits on not only the expenditures but also the amount to time seeking office.

An interesting example might be the United Kingdom.  In brief, there is a limit on the amount of funds spent on a campaign – £ 54.010 per contest – meaning office – and, here’s one for the books, there is a time limit of six weeks between when the Prime Minister calls for an election and the day to cast votes.

Might be really difficult for our system to place such a short time limit on a campaign but infinity will not do either.

Reform here means first and foremost, the repeal of the Citizens United decision, which clearly fosters influence peddling to historic levels, as we currently see. Following that, limits on expenditures would have to be negotiated but the multi millions currently would  definitely have to be reined in considerably. We should be well tired of elections being paid for like being at an auction.  As for an allowable time frame, would propose six months should be sufficient to plead ones case to be elected.

And now, perhaps a word or two regarding the candidates and their held office. In a time where character does not seem to matter one iota, we, as a  nation , must return to the time when it did. Over the recent decades, the ruling body – congress – seems to be lacking in not only character but also the ability to govern. While one can and should respect the so called “ common man “ , the position – the job as it were, must be manned by individuals who not only are sufficiently vetted but must swear to be loyal, not to any person but to the constitution and in addition, sign a “ Contract with the People  “ which states that they will execute the duties of the office according to the rule of law,  the rules of decorum and the rules of congress  and to represent faithfully the concerns of their constituents . 

Candidates for an office must have significant experience in the skills to govern and manage, especially as it relates to governing, be it either in the public or the private sector and simply being a lawyer should be deemed insufficient. 

Speaking of law, the candidate – unlike the current occupant of the oval office – cannot have a criminal record or a felony conviction for at least the previous ten years and, if elected as a representative, must live in the district they are elected to represent for a minimum of five years prior to the election. 

And finally, there is more and more compelling indication that, for both legislative and judicial offices, term limits are a critical element to the survival of democracy.

One proposal on the proverbial table is that for members of congress in the House,  the office holder would be limited to four terms, or eight years . For members of congress in the Senate, the limit would be for two terms, or twelve years. On the state level, terms in many states are  already currently limited. For example, in one state, members are limited to four consecutive two year terms in each House.

As to judges, – speaking of federal judges -, it was proposed that they be limited to ten years, eliminating all current life time appointments. This would also apply to the Supreme Court, but for them., be limited to twelve year terms.

In these recent times , probably more than ever, massive reform measures are demanding to be enacted. This applies to not only government on all levels but also in the private / financial sector as well. While the list is extensive, we have tried to address, in brief, some of the issues that directly affect our every day lives. Take the message to heart and take up the demand to make them happen.